An Expanded Tournament

Posted on: February 28, 2010 3:10 am

It's ridiculous to think that we could be looking at a 96 team tournament field next year. Heck, anything more than 65 is ridiculous. But to be perfectly honest, I still think 65 teams is dumb. The tournament needs to go back to 64 teams. That way everybody would have to win the same amount of games to be the national champion. Of course the tournament hasn't been this way since 2000 but it still wouldn't hurt to go back to that. (For those of you wondering, the field expanded to 65 teams when the Mountain West Conference was formed. Instead of giving up one of the 34 at-large bids, the NCAA decided to keep them and add one more automatic conference bid. This meant that there would be 31 automatic bids to the NCAA Tournament since there were now 31 conferences.)

Anyway, let's think about why an expansion to the tournament would be such a bad idea.

#1 Office pools would suck. Seriously, who wants to fill out a 96 team bracket? Who has the time for one? Heck, people rarely even pick the play-in game. This proves that 64 is the ideal number.

#2 There aren't that many teams that are good enough to be in it. You're telling me that there are more than 65 teams that have a legitimate shot at being the national champion? Really there aren't even 65; or even 32 for that matter. Having a 96 team tournament would pretty much guarantee any team from the 6 major conferences with a winning record would get in and mid-majors such as the Atlantic 10 and Conference USA would be getting half of their teams in every year. That is absolutely absurd.

#3 Fans would be fatigued over watching so many games. There's no way people would be willing to watch 95 games. The 63 games (or 64 games if you're a hardcore fan) is already good enough. No need to add 31 more pointless games.

#4 More teams would get byes. In a 96 team tournament, the top 32 teams would get byes. I'm sorry but I believe that NOBODY should get a bye in the NCAA Tournament. Kansas should have no more of an advantage than Texas Southern.

#5 Three weeks of college basketball is enough. If we added another round, the tournament wouldn't end until mid-April! There's a reason it's called March Madness dang it! Let's keep all or most of the tournament in March.

#6 Expanding the NCAA Tournament from 65 teams to 96 teams while the BCS refuses to expand its tournament to anything more than 2 teams would be absurd. That's another topic that I could rant on so I'm just gonna say...'Nuff said.

#7 The NIT would become extinct. At one time, the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAA Tournament. Why throw away all of that tradition by expanding the NCAA Tournament? While the NIT is no NCAA Tournament, it's still pretty awesome.

#8 Teams would no longer earn their way in. By expanding the tournament to 96 teams, we are basically saying that every team should get involved...kinda like college football's bowl season. Seriously, whatever happened to earning something. Everything these days seems to be just given away. I'm sorry but not every team deserves a trophy and not every team deserves to be in a tournament.

#9 It would kill the significance of the conference tournaments. Conference tournaments are HUGE. They cause more drama and more bubbles to burst than any other part of the season (with exception to the Big Dance). Allowing 96 teams in the NCAA Tournament would make these games meaningless as everyone from their conference tournament quarterfinals would be already guaranteed to be in the Big Dance.

#10 (This is the biggest one.) My girlfriend would break up with me. She always counts on not seeing me for 3 weeks of the year. She knows I'm always glued to the television set and that I'll watch literally every game. Because she knows it's only 3 weeks, she allows me to do it (although she hates to). If this tournament were to expand, she won't be able to handle it. She'd leave me faster than Britney Spears did with K-Fed. This can't happen. I can't be put in a position to choose between college basketball and my girlfriend. Because, if I were to be, I would have to choose college basketball.

An Expanded Tournament

Wow man. If what you proposed here happened I'd throw up. Nothing personal against you but I think that is a horrible idea. Let me go through the 10 things you listed here.

1. An Elite 8 weekend? Why? Division 1 is the only division that seeds its teams. There are 4 of every seed. That's why it makes sense to have a Final Four weekend. By the way, the Elite 8 could NOT be played on a Thursday night because it would consist of 4 games and would take the whole day to complete since only one location would be used. The late stages of the tournament are set up so that more viewers could watch the later, more important games of the tournament. Having an all day Elite 8 would mean that games would be played at approximately 12 PM, 2:30 PM, 7 PM, and 9:30 PM. Also, the reason the other divisions have an Elite 8 weekend is because they need to play three games that closely together in order to save money. The poorer schools play in Division 2 and Division 3.

2. The point of these postseason tournaments is to encourage do-or-die play. This is what creates the best basketball. You win and advance or you lose and go home (except in the CBI championship game which is a best of 3 series- how ridiculous). This is what brings out the best in players. They know they have to win to survive. Losing in the NCAAs and then getting placed in the NIT, CBI, and CIT to try and win those tournaments is just dumb. Anyways, those tournaments were put into place to include teams left OUT of the NCAA Tournament. It gives more teams chances to play for something. (I don't really agree with that idea as I think the NIT should be the only other postseason tournament. It has such a great history.)

3. I partly agree. College basketball fans do NOT get fatigued. However, the NCAA Tournament attracts a larger crowd. Just like the Super Bowl attracts non-football fans with its commercials, the NCAA Tournament attracts non-college basketball fans with its bracket pools. This is as much basketball as these people can take. It's already too much for a lot of them to keep up with. These fans DO get fatigued.

4. Like Bob Knight has said, EVERY team in the tournament should have to play the same amount of games in order to win the championship. Byes are stupid. Nobody should have an advantage. It keeps things interesting and allows for many upsets. If there were 128 teams, yes, everybody would have to win 7 games to be national champs. But seriously, do 36.9% of the 347 Division 1 schools really deserve a tournament bid??? Heck no! It's hard to make a case that even 65 teams deserve a bid!

5. I don't see how a bigger bracket could keep people with no college basketball IQ from winning their office pools. They can still get lucky. It'll be the same as before. A bigger bracket won't change anything.

6. Finally, one I agree with!

7. No. There are NOT enough good teams. By the way, you just proved my point about Syracuse. They lost a PRESEASON EXHIBITION game against Division 2 LeMoyne. Since when did preseason mean anything to teams? These exhibition games in college basketball are used to evaluate players, plays, and other details. These games help coaches see what works and what doesn't. I can promise you that Jim Boeheim could care less about losing to LeMoyne. The game meant NOTHING. This is a weak argument dude. If you watch the NFL then you should know better than to think the preseason means anything.

8. Yes, approximately 1/3 of the 347 teams would be involved in a 128 team tournament field. But how does being in the top 1/3 of Division 1 earn you a tournament spot? It doesn't! And if you had to pick 128 teams to go to that type of tournament, I guarantee you people would laugh at some of the teams mentioned. "Centenary...17-12...RPI 165...big wins include IPFW, Southern Utah, and UMKC." Why the hell would you want a team like that in the NCAA Tournament?! Those are the caliber teams you'll have once you try to pick "the last 4 in" in a tournament of that size. That's just stupid!

9. Yes it makes conference tournaments less important! In the big 6 conferences you can expect somewhere around half the teams on average in those conferences to get into the NCAA Tournament. For conferences like the Mountain West, Atlantic 10, Conference USA, Missouri Valley, or WCC you can expect sometimes 2 or 3 teams on average. For the rest of the conferences you can expect 1 on average. If you expand the NCAA Tournament to 128 teams or even 96 teams then you allow for LESS games of importance in the conference tournaments. The big 6 conferences would have about 75% of their teams in the NCAA Tournament. Expanding the field would mean that less teams would have to play as hard to make it. Minnesota of the Big Ten is a perfect example of this, this year. An expanded tournament would have meant that they would already have been in and wouldn't have to play to survive. With a 65 team field, Minnesota had to beat Penn State, Michigan State, and Purdue just to get in. Plus, if these low teams like St. John's, DePaul, or the "bottom 7 of the Pac-10" have to play hard and win several games just to get into a field of 96 or 128 then they don't deserve to be in anyway. That's just ridiculous. Those teams have their shot anyway with a 65 team field. Obviously they just suck because DePaul didn't win a freakin game in the Big East Tournament and St. John's didn't beat anybody good in the Big East Tournament. (No, UConn is not any good so don't even try saying they are.)

10. Is that what she says? I hope she agrees with you on that. We need more marriages that last till death because marriage just looks like a joke these days.

Anyways man, please do some research on this. Look at the comments on this blog. You're pretty much the only guy who thinks an expanded tournament is a good idea. Smart fans know an expanded tournament is a boneheaded idea. Be apart of the majority. Gain some college basketball common sense. That way you can see that expansion does nothing except put a lot of bad teams in the tournament. Best of wishes to you.

Since: Aug 27, 2006

Posted on: March 4, 2010 11:08 am

An Expanded Tournament: I have to disagree!

I think the tournament SHOULD expand to not only 96 teams, but to 128.

Here are my reasons.

#1 It would take no more than three weeks. D-II and D-III already do not have a Final Four weekend, but rather an "Elite 8 Weekend". The Round of Eight could be played Thursday night, the Final Four on Saturday, and the Final on Mnday night of week 3. By the way, the championship IS ALREADY PLAYED on MOnday night of the third week.

#2 It would enhance the NIT, CBI, and CIT tournaments, not kill them. Losers from each of the 3 first rounds could be eleigble for each tournament. The CIT could be 16 first round losers or second round losers not chosen by the CBI. The CBI could choose 16 of the second round losers. The NIT could be the losers of the 16 teams of round 3. These teams would have some "street cred" because there are always a couple of really good teams that get knocked off in the first few games. You very well could have a Top 15 or two in the NIT, bringing eyeballs to watch that championship game.

#3 Fans don't get fatigued. There would be double the sites for the opening two rounds, so more fans can be in the arenas watching games, with shorter drives gererally.

#4 If there is 96 teams, 6 games is still needed for 32 teams to win a title. If there are 128 teams, it is ONLY ONE MORE GAME. And truthfully, the #1 seed would still likely play the conference winner of the SWAC conference.

#5 Office pools would be better! Less likely to have a complete imbasile win it based on choosing their favorite mascots!

#6 The BCS sucks.....NEXT!

#7 Not ebough good teams....really. #1 Syracuse got beat in a pre-season exhibition, by DIVISION II LeMoyne! I am sorry, there are PLENTY of good teams.

#8 Only 1/3 of the teams are involved even with 128 teams....... they have earned their way in.

#9 Conference tournaments unimportant? Tell me the only way St. John's, DePaul, or the bottom 7 of the PAC-10 (this season) gets in the tournament even with 128 teams!

#10 I am married. My wife is stuck with me, for better or for worse.

Since: Dec 7, 2007

Posted on: March 2, 2010 9:47 pm

An Expanded Tournament

It always amazes me how people can have something so very, very good and not realize it. The 65 team fromat is great. It is wonderful basketball. Yet someone always wants to tinker with a good thing. Yes the 48 team format was probably too few. 96 is way too many teams. The only, and only expansion of the tourney I'd be for is play in games to see who will be the 16 seeds in each region. 68 teams. The trouble with that is team #69 will feel cheated. Then we'll go to 72, then 96.

I'm with you all. Keep the sucker the way it is for now. No need to screw up a good thing until it shows signs of going bad.

Besides, all those boxes on an 8 1/2 by 11 inch sheet of paper are going to tough to fill out with 96 teams. We'll all need lots of extra paper to do our brackets. Go green, stay 65 NCAA.

Since: Dec 29, 2006

Posted on: March 2, 2010 10:47 am

An Expanded Tournament

If it isn’t broke don’t fix it.It is the one tournament were people care even if there team is eliminated.

That being said if someone held a gun to my head and said it must be expanded I would expand it but only to 80.

48 teams, 30 Conference Champs + 18 top at large get in the field of 64 seeded (1-12) in each region.This adds value to winning your conference championship or regular season if you don’t have one, and even the smallest of conferences gets a bit of respect with at least a 12 seed.

The remaining 32 teams play on play in Tuesday on the higher seeds homecourt . The winners fill out seeds (13-16) in each region. This gives most true bubble teams one shot at proving there worth against whom they are being compared.The 25-5 team upset in its conference tournament gets a shot to prove they are worthy, the 17-13 team in a power conference gets to prove there record is an indication of quality competition.

Of course if you like to debate there will still be plenty of debate between the final few of the first 48 teams, who gets seeded for a home game and who doesn't, and of course the last few in last few out. I would also suggest the NIT not make its selection until after Play in Tuesday to allow for losers of the play in game to take part in the NIT.

23 percent of the NCAA Division schools would make the tournament, still lower than MLB Playoffs 26 percent, or the NFL Playoffs 38 percent.

Since: Feb 3, 2010

Posted on: March 2, 2010 6:34 am

An Expanded Tournament

I think instead of expanding the tournament, we should just give everyone a little trophy with an "I am loved" button. That way, no one will feel like a loser, and no one will be scared for life due to the trauma of failure.

One of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

Poobah77
Since: Jan 3, 2010

Posted on: March 1, 2010 8:50 pm

This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Sep 21, 2008

Posted on: February 28, 2010 11:02 pm

An Expanded Tournament

Very well said man. 65 teams is fine, because let's face it, even if we are gun-ho about watching all the games, some games are worthless as hell.

Mad props for not stopping at 9 (which would've been understandable) but adding in a humorous and true 10. I've been in the same boat before. Well said.

Since: Feb 25, 2010

Posted on: February 28, 2010 8:37 pm

An Expanded Tournament

I had no idea someone is suggesting An Expanded Tournament. Was this NCAA idea? But no, we should not expand. However, I have a diificult time seeing the lack of equality of picking teams for NCAA Tourney. For example, a team from a less popular conference ends a regular season at 25-5 but gets upset at their conference playoff. Therefore that team all the sudden gets bumped to NIT even with a 25-5 record and instead a team from major conference with a 16-11 record gets invited to NCAA Tourney. I always find that wrong and still do. Maybe NCAA needs to review their selection process and if can't find a solution then maybe expand some but not 96 teams.

Since: Feb 19, 2007

Posted on: February 28, 2010 5:44 pm

An Expanded Tournament

What's really funny/sad/pathetic about this expansion nonsense is that it's not going to benefit those who are truly deserving of a better shot at the national title. So you're right on the money. A whole bunch of crappy teams from the major conferences who are legitimately on the bubble because they suck would get in, and the mid-majors would still get screwed.

Having ignoramuses like Bob Huggins at the forefront of this only ensures that the mid-majors will continue to get the shaft until they're removed entirely.

What does every college b-ball fan love about March Madness? The potential (and delivery) of upsets. That's a huge part of what makes it exciting, not seeing the chalk get through unscathed.

I really like the conference tournaments too. A lot of epic stuff there, even in the major conference ones.

Since: May 20, 2008

Posted on: February 28, 2010 5:19 pm

An Expanded Tournament

Since this is about college basketball I will completely ignore the topic of the way the bowl system is setup for NCAA...... which should be completely revamped from the way it is now.

I agree with the idea that expanding is extremely stupid. Like the other guy said it is a stupid attempt to make more money. The field of 64/65 is GREAT the way it is. Like you said it is truly the best 3 weeks of the year, regardless of who your favorite team is.

Some of your points where excellent, while others were completely opinion based, but still valid. The points about the conference tournaments, earning the right, etc. are your best points. The office pool and things probably don't matter to the NCAA, lmao.

Grizz

P.S. I think all guys will agree you made the right decision in choosing college basketball over the girlfriend. Sometimes you just have to make tough choices in life!!!!